Skip to main content
12:30 am
some of the parishes on the west side are still in a massive debt because of their project to enhance their services. and genuinely, i think an argument can be made that these gyms that are not tripp enhancers, they are not like the hospitals. i'm here standing up offering an amendment for the hospitals. you're right, supervisor wiener, the hospitals should be paying this fee. they are trip generators that nonprofit housing folks that i'm about to offer also concerns me, they are trip generators. but today is not the day to pick should pay the fee and which shouldn't. that is not an appropriate place at the board but should happen through your tsp discussion as you were doing the full eir analysis, the full analysis of this, who pays and who shouldn't, just doing the refresher of the tidf should be
12:31 am
nothing more than a refresher. to have a complete policy change in this legislation would be a mistake. so with that as my intro, for my justification as to why i think we need to do this, i do not ask the city attorney to prepare the written language because frankly untangling it would have led toé a -- manner and the intent here is to offer an amendment that would replace the proposed language back with our current language so that all nonprofits will remain exempt from this tidf fee. that is my motion. >> president chiu: supervisor elsbernd has made the motion as he's described. is there a second to that motion? seconded by supervisor avalos. campos. >> supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking supervisor wiener and the mta for taking on this issue.
12:32 am
i agree that this is something that has to be looked at, and i don't know that i have any disagreement with the general principles and concept that has been laid out. you know, we wantqqjyv everyoneo have -- take some responsibility for the impact that they have and their projects have on transit. the issue for me is not so much the substance of what's before us. i may very well agree with what we have before us. but the question is what is the best process to actually get to a change in what happens on this matter, specifically what happens to the nonprofito%(hyf exemption that we're talking about. and i really believe that the transportation sustainability program, theç$( ]5 tsp, is actuy the proper process that will allow for us to make these kinds of changes. let us remember that one of the things that is supposed top6jqsç happen under the tsp is to
12:33 am
actually replace the transit impact development fee that we are voting on today. that is supposed to bepúph"t red by the stp. -- tsp. if we are to make the policy changes through the tsp process we need to make the substantive change on the tidf today. and so i also want to be clear that there may be some folks who are opposed to what supervisor wiener is proposing today because they may be oppose happening. and while i respect that view, i don't share that view. i do think that we need to revisit these issues. but again it's not so much what we do but how we do it. and i do believe that we owe it to making sure that we follow the process that has been laid out on the tsp to include this in that discussion and that's what i look forward to doing. and i could not agree more that we need to make sure that we do
12:34 am
everything we can to increase funding for public transportation, and a number of us have been working to make that happen, not eenel here local -- only here locally but also at the regional level. we as a body, through the county transportation authority not too funding to increase service by muni. and i don't know that anyone here, on this board, isn't committed to doing everything we can to make sure that that system has the resources it needs. that's not the question here. the question is how we do it and i think tsp provides the opportunity to make that happen. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you supervisor elsbernd and campos for your comments. i agree with supervisor campos that everyone is at least theoretically committed to supporting muni funding and reliability. it's like mom and apple pie. but we cast real votes and make real policy decisions and actions do speak louder than
12:35 am
words. so i know everyone here is committed, but the question is can we make the hard political choices to actually show that commitment by adequately funding muni. there will always, always be otherñ$nzném important policy ur muni funds. so that's really the question. and supervisor campos, i look forward to working with you in the next year, to hold folks accountable so that when people maybe comee (2 forward and maybe aren't as committed to changing the exemption next year, we can remind them that that is direction where we want to go. i just want a few points in response to supervisor elsbernd. you know, supervisor elsbernd knows i have been one of the most vocal folks expressing concern about the free muni program, about using that money for free muni instead of for maintenance. and i think it was not the right
12:36 am
decision by mta but with that said the decision was made and we have a funding choice here to make. in terms of, you know, an auditorium or something that might be greater than 25,000 square feet, the problem here is that no one ever even wanted to negotiate. i put the 25,000 square foot number out there. if you made it 30, 40, or 45 square feet, we can talk. it was always no. that's been the sort of frustration here. and then in terms of selecting different nonprofits, we all know that everyone has their favorite group of nonprofits. some people will, you know, really want to support and help the private schools. others, the social service providers, or affordable housers, or any other -- or the museums. everyone has their sort of favorite group of nonprofits about which they're passionate. you start stripping them away
12:37 am
all of a sudden you're left with nothing and you have trip generators that are not paying the tidf. with respect to the tidf versus the tidf. this is not just a refresh in a way that we make something look pretty. there was a full nexus study done. now is the appropriate time to make the policy choice. thank you, colleagues. supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: i want to associate my comments with supervisor elsbernd. we hear about the need by mta about needing to invest in infrastructure yet the decisions are not with that priority. i want to associate myself with those comments. i think we need to make a
12:38 am
significant investment in muni. we need to take a visit to some of the facilities that mta has, but also to see some of the performance we've seen in this recent weekend, albeit that there was a natural occurrence of storm and other things that complicated the situation. the amendment before us today has to do with exempting out nonprofits. i thought long and hard about this andñjr)ó talked to a lot f folks about it and i actually don't think that's the direction that we should be going. that we should be going. i think thate% with a nonprofit status should be paying into the transportation system and because of that i would much prefer a different approach as opposed to a blanket exemption. i actually would much prefer having a higher level of square footage exemption to we are able to hold some of the smaller nonprofits harmless. that's rather the approach i would go on this regard so i would be voting against that amendment. over all i think it is the right direction for us to move into in
12:39 am
terms of being able to get more funding for muni and i don't think a blanket exemption is the right way to go but to have a square footage level that is different or a higher level of exemption. i know we will take the amendment as it comes and so we'll vote on this. and if there is enough support for the amendment then we'll evaluate a different higher level. that is why i will be voting against the amendment. thank you. >> president chiu: i will be supporting supervisor elsbernd's amendment today. i think that it doesn't make sense for a simple renewal at this time for us not to continue existing policies. that being said, i absolutely agree with the transit community, that we need to have a real dialogue around long-term funding solutions for our transportation system, and i want to reiterate, my appreciation for the good faith commitment made by leaders in the nonprofit community, that we
12:40 am
near future, and having a dialogue about nonprofit involvement with the potential transportation sustainability program, which is currently undergoing environmental review. i think we need to do that. we have to figure out how all of us, that have impacts on the transportation system, are helping to ensure that we're paying for that. and we also have to make sure that all of our residents can access, through transit, the nonprofit community provides. so i very much look forward to that conversation, and i'm taking on good faith that we are going to have a real conversation about that in the coming months. but with that i will be supporting supervisor elsbernd. any further discussion? colleagues, let's take a roll call vote on supervisor elsbernd's amendment. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor avalos, aye.
12:41 am
supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, no. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor4v( 0ñ farrell, aye. supervisor there are nine ayes and two1pi53 >> president chiu: motion passes. any further discussion, colleagues? on the underlying ordinance as amended, roll call vote. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisorccpz cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye.nwp)> president chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading. supervisor kim are you prepared to go back to item 13. >> supervisor kim: i am but i would like to rescind my vote on
12:42 am
item 14. i'm sorry i was still settling in and working on amendments for item 13. >> president chiu: a motion to rescind item 14, seconded by supervisor campos. without objection that vote will be rescinded. roll call vote on item 14. >> clerk calvillo: on item 14, supervisor mar,l)ãñ no. supervisor olague, no. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor campos, no. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, no. there are six ayes and five nos. >> president chiu: that ordinance is finally passed. let's go back to item 13. madam clerk, did you call that item? >> clerk calvillo: item 13 was called, mr. president. >> president chiu: okay. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank'"
12:43 am
time, as we worked on amendmen amendments, final amendments to this whole appropriation. i do also want to recognize that young lee or deputy superintendent of budget and policy is here to answer questions from board members as well. i did, just because there's been so many narratives and so many questions around the supplemental and need for supplemental i wanted to go into the framing of where this is coming from. as many of you know california is the 9th largest economy in the world and we educate one out of eight children in the united states. california currently ranks left in teacher to student ratio, we rank last in library to student to student ratio. over the last five years, 2007-08 the district has been cut by 146gjtgç million. this past year alone the state budget cuts were 77 million.
12:44 am
for every student, the district should be receiving@gj5é $6697,0 $5204. the district has had to cut nine and a half school days to furlough days because of this. that's nine and a half less school days for us to teach reading, math, science, you name it. but yet we expect our students to graduate on time and to be just as successful as other students with"ej3w nine less instructional days. as a teacher i just want everyone to understand the pressure that you have in fulfilling your lesson plans when you have nine less days to teach the students the same amount of information that you're expected to. five years ago we were ranked 38 out of 50 in( jó the country anr people spending. today ?j x8ñ are ranked 47th. all of the southern states in the u.s. that make far less than we do in our tax dollar base
12:45 am
spend more than we do on per people spending. in response to this in 2004 san francisco voters passed a measure to counter this. parents knew that although we were once first in the country in our public school system, not just k-12 but also higher education that we were neveris% going back there. so parents put on the ballot a measure called proposition h so we could ask the city to spend a morgs of our tax dollars to enrich our public schools. i know as a policy set asides are a controversial issue and agree they tie hands of legislators and city officials in how to prioritize budgetary dollars but we heard affirmative support from voters saying they of those dollars will go into our public schools, starting at 10 million and going up to 60 million. as a school board member i try to visit all of our schools and i visit schools almost once a week during the school year. and i can't tell you what an
12:46 am
incredible impact proposition h has made in our schools. you actually see libraries in elementary schools, that hadn't been open in years, they didn't have librarians to put books in their proper order. you started seeing art classes being brought back to middle schools and sports and pe brought back to high schools that had formerly been cut. we were able to fund more counselors and many other things. i think this fund is incredibly important. but as you know over the last five years the city has also experienceexperienced deficits. because of that we begun to pull on something that is known as the prop h trigger which is when we project 100 million in give to the school district. over the last five years, we have pulled 74 million from our school district.8srz now, last year, when we pulled the trigger again, i think that
12:47 am
many of us saw that we had -- we were expectingynnj= another structural deficit as we've seen in the years before. but as we got closer to the night of june 30, i started to see actually that our budget had grown in a positive direction. and i was concerned that, as the states continue to cut our schools that we weren't able to backfill those cuts. i wanted everyone to understand where this supplemental is coming from. it came from what i was seeing wanting to give a small piece back. unexpectedly the school was cut from its after school funding source which is our 21st century funding source. it had been a late cutaupz; so e school district had not prepared to backfill it in their budget process as well. at the same time in july the school district had also begun to pull the data in terms of how our first two classes in our high schools, that were expected to graduate a-g on a standard
12:48 am
that our cleedges, uc and usc system expect students to graduate in how they were doing. what we learned then was that close to 50% -- sorry, i want to make sure i get these numbers right. i'm sorry, that 45% of our juniors in the class of 2014 were off track to graduate in time with the a-g requirements. that represents almost 2,000 students. accord to this data, only 84 out of 332 african-american juniors were on track. and onlytjp)h 265 of 821 latino juniors were on track to graduate. we also found that 487 chinese graduate. i said this before, but i want people to understand that these students are the students that have stuck it out. in fact many students have dropped out before their junior
12:49 am
year. we lose 50% of african-american students between 9th and 12th grade. these are students that are stb sticking it out and we need to ensure that they get the credit recovery, evening classes, the targeted support they need to graduate on time next year. that is where the supplemental has come from. people asked if this is a one-time ask for the school district. yes it -- while it is a one time ask for the school district i want my colleagues to understand i introduced the supplemental because i think it's important for us as a city body to support our school on thisfjpfw very is. it's not the school district that came to me asking for this money. this is something i felt was the right thing for us to do and the right way to spend our statewide reserve funds. unfortunately, in these discussions, we've found that, as our revenue has done better, and many of you have gotten the report from our controller today that our budget actually grew a little over $50 million since june 30, that many of our baselines have gone up.
12:50 am
one of them of course is our public school's baseline. so one of the amendments that i'm introducing today, that you currently have before you, is that instead of pulling the entire $2.7 million that has been requested -- that i'm requesting, that -- from the statewide reserve fund that a portion of that $1.4 million comes from our school district set aside funds. this is our baseline for the public schools. the remainder amount i'm still revenue -- reserve. in addition i'm also asking for a second amendment. so the school district has -- found an additional 200,000 that it can contribute to this $250,000 from its proposed budget of what it would like to spend on credit recovery program. so the entire appropriation -- amount is now going down to
12:51 am
$2,205,000. so those are the amendments i'm putting forward today. i just want to take a moment to really appreciate the school district because i know that you've had to work really hard on this budget. i know it's a small amount of money and i want to appreciate richard carranza, janet schultz, ms. lee, and -- on the school district end coming up with a program that we can use to benefit our juniors and sof morse that are currently not on track to graduate. i want to thank our school boar particular sandraspj8d feuer, jill wins and our future incoming board member matt haney for being engaged in this process and our many community advocates from coleman advocates, young community developers, chalk, our youth commission, and also members of the san francisco parent pac for their involvement in this issue as well. colleagues, if there4p%( :g ary
12:52 am
questions, myself or deputy superintendent lee are prepared >> president chiu: supervisor explain the specific numbers that you're amending. and because they did involve some changes from6( qd) initial proposal and there were i know a couple of additional sources of money from the school district to patch in some of the funding you were looking for. if you will explain it again. >> supervisor kim: i started from the sources. so i'm reducing the ask from 2,705,000 to 2,205,000. this reduction comes from two places. one, the school district was able to find 200,000 in savings that it is willing to put into this program. on top of that the school district has agreed, in its conversations with the mayor's 250,000 from its -- from the initial ask.
12:53 am
so in our community based satellite center, instead of allocating 200,000 in the proposed budget we would only allocate 150,000. and in targeted support we would reduce that amount from 300,000 to just 100,000. the second amendment that i am amendment language in front of you, is to change the sources. and so we are requesting that 1,412,000 come from the public school baseline, and that only 843,000 come from the state revenue loss reserve. >> president chiu: thank you. supervisor kim has made motion to amend as described, seconded by supervisor mar. is there further conversation? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: i know ourwy controller, ben rowsen field is here. because of the issue dipping into the rainy day fund came up at our last meeting let me ask the question. so this will not touch rainy day
12:54 am
funds and it's coming from the school district's baseline set aside funds. is that right, mr. rosenfield? >> ben rosenfieldenfield, controller. that's correct, supervisor. the amendment that's before you thatd%( su supervisor kim has m, is it not draw from the rainy day fund for schools but instead draws from available balances from the public education baseline that's available from prior years. >> supervisor mar: thankó0jpz y. i wanted to acknowledgeq j"z m, the deposit superintendent here and thank him for the great work not only as a partner with the city but making sure that there's a great support as we hopefully reauthorize the public education enrichment fund or prop h for future years, and also continue with the rainy day funds for the future. i also want to acknowledge here and coleman advocates and many of the youth commissioners and others that advocated for
12:55 am
this equitable use of funds to support the almost 2,000 students that are in our high schools as juniors that may be on track to fail, and not to gain their high school diplomas without this support from the city. it is a crisis in three semesters that we have to really support these students. that's why i saylçt!td like supr kim said it's about equity and support this effort. so i really applaud supervisor kim but it's the youth movements and coleman advocates and others that have led from the campaign for the a-g requirements to support high school students to be able to have opportunities for college and higher education. african-american, latino and english-languageojsqy lerner advocates in pushing for this as an equitable and just measure. everyone else that has worked on this. >> president chiu: supervisor chu.
12:56 am
supplemental value i wanted was correct. you're looking at 2.7 supplemental reducing it to 2 2.205. it looks like the source of funding you're suggesting is 4.412 from the schoolw5hhheñ dit set aside funds and the balance from the state reserves? >> supervisor kim: that is correct. >> supervisor chu: the balance was more like -- >> supervisor kim: i thought it was 843,000. >> it probably should be 793,000? in front of us. have the balance come from the state reserve, correct? okay. so i wanted to clarify that, and glad that that was amended and changed. i know that young and other folks at the school district have been working hard with the mayor's office to work on that number and really trying to work that number down in a way that
12:57 am
didn't jeopardize the credentialing program so i want to thank the school district for making the effort to do that. so i am very supportive of the reduction to that level. i think that's a good sign. the area where i still continue to have problems with the supplemental has to do with the source of fundings and i think expressed before. i think that itwx::t+z is -- ifs the school district who is indicating to us that this is a top priority of the school district i do think that it is incumbent on the school district to also put some funding into the supplemental, even if weij@ are -- i know there's a lot of controversy around using the rainy day funds. but even if it wasn't the rainy day fund that was available the school district has, at the end of the year, the 26 million in fund balance. and it is true that the school district does project that they have future year deficits, but many things can change. as we all know with a budget, as the economy changes, as we get better revenue forecasts we have a different understanding of the budget and can adapt to it and
12:58 am
balance to that level later on. so i really do think that taking a look at some of the funding sources here, it really ought to come i think from a place where the school district says it is their priority and that they're willing and able to use rainy day funds and even not that the reserves that they expect to have towards the end of the year. again they ended last year's school year with a fund balance of -- this year of 26 million. fundamentally i don't disagree with the usage but i think the source of funding is important for the city to consider especially knowing that we have other impacts that may flow down for us. so i will be -- if i could take the amendment in two parts, one to reduce the level of funding from the 2.upon million to the 2.205 and separate out the funding source instead of it coming from the state revenue loss, coming from the rainy day.
12:59 am
>> supervisor chu asked to divide the question on the amendment. we will take those two at the appropriate time. further discussion on the amendments. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much, mr. president. good afternoon, everyone. many of us have spent a significant amount of time speaking with the young people that have come to lobby with us, parents, and the school district about this particular issue. what's very clear to most of us, certainly to me, is that we have a significant and alarming issue that we have to deal with. almost 200 students in our city are not on track to graduate from high school -- excuse me, 2,000. 2,000 students, a large number of them, largely coming from district 10, the bayview, visit visitacion valley. we know one of the

December 7, 2012 12:30am-1:00am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Chiu 14, Chu 8, Campos 8, Kim 6, Wiener 5, Avalos 3, Olague 3, Cohen 3, Coleman 3, Elsbernd 3, California 2, San Francisco 2, Mar 2, Housers 1, Latino 1, Ben Rosenfieldenfield 1, Us As A City 1, Stb 1, Usc 1, The Bayview 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color